Command: Strike now! A suggestion

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

Nah, cause with those 2 actions you get a MAPless attack.

So, 1 action to Strike at full MAP and 2 actions for your Barbarian to strike at full Map is better than you striking at -5 MAP a second time.

Same thing goes for something like a rogue, you attack once at full MAP and then give your rogue another MAPless sneak attack, and etc.

If it was 1 for 1 it would be OP. It would translate to a martial that never suffers from MAP, doing 3 attacks with 0 MAP in a turn.

Uh no.

Your argument against a misconstruction of my argument which means its a strawman.

Please steelman my argument.

Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3
Fighter makes a full attack at 9/4/-1
Rogue makes a full attack at 7/2/-3

Commander makes a full attack at 7/4/-3 (Barbarian, then fighter, then rogue)

Using the barbarians strike, then fighters strike, then rogues strike.

As opposed to whats in the playtest which is Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3 and then I make him strike one additional time at 7 and then use my strike which is a 7.

So that's 7 for my strike using lets say a 1d8+4 weapon or 5-12 damage or 8.5 on average against 18 AC = 11...

Just because you don't agree doesn't make an argument strawman.

If you can give actions 1 for 1 you literally give mapless attacks in place of your map attacks.

Making it op.

You can fiddle and try to find worst situations possible to base your argument, but in most occasions, doing a mapless attack, then giving your barbarian a mapless attack, then giving the rogue a map -4 (or -5depending) sneak attack, will out damage every single martial rotation currently in the game.

Again, just going straight up from what you posted:
1st use of ability no MAP, 2nd with MAP.

[Verzen]

"Just because you don't agree doesn't make an argument strawman."

You misconstrued my argument.

That makes it a strawman.

You think a suggestion that actually deals LESS DPS on average is overpowered. Can you explain this to me? How this works? How is dealing LESS DPS on avg (barely, less, but still less) is overpowered.

I am also using the BEST situation possible to see how much DPS my suggestion deals compared to whats in the playtest and my suggestion is still less DPS than in the playtest, but you claim it's overpowered. Rather than just tell me it's overpowered, can you show me the math that demonstrates that it's overpowered or do you not know how to do statistical math and that's why I haven't seen any math from you, just you claiming what I said is OP.

[LeoChep]

Verzen wrote:

hesai wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Ectar wrote:

What you ask for is crazy overpowered. Trading 1 for 1 actions is mega powerful; you give extra attacks to your best striker and it's better than just being a 2nd striker:

You didn't have to move in to position. You didn't have to raise your STR high to hit, nor your CON to survive hits. You get to double up on the power of a single-target buff. You can "melee" from myriad different squares in the same turn.

Your proposal grants unbelievable power at level 1 and makes no concessions or limitations that make it okay.
There's a reason Strike Hard! is 2 actions and an ally's reaction.

The issue with requiring 2 actions for 1 is that i might as well just make a barbarian as bringing a commander to the party actually 'weakens' the party composition rather than strengthens it.

u are right,but we doesn't have reason to 'strengthens it'.

if it will strengthens it,the barbarian turn to weakness.
we just need to find the eval.

Actually, funny enough I was wrong.

The playtest deals more damage than my suggestion, but my suggestion is more interesting imo.

i was more interesting in give a strike and give a command together lol.

Fight with my friends!

[Verzen]

"You can fiddle and try to find worst situations possible to base your argument, but in most occasions, doing a mapless attack, then giving your barbarian a mapless attack, then giving the rogue a map -4 (or -5depending) sneak attack, will out damage every single martial rotation currently in the game."

Except I did the math. I. Did. The. Math. I showed you the math.

On a die of 20, each number represents 5%.

Against an AC of 18, a +9 to attack hits based on rolling a 9(9+9=18) to 18 while a roll of 19 (is 28) is over 10 which indicates its a crit.

So if I deal 1d8+4 avg of 5-12 damage, the average of this is 17/2.

8.5*.5+17*.1

8.5*.5 means that you have a 50% chance of dealing 8.5 avg damage and a 10% chance of dealing 17 average damage. Combine those together, you end up getting on average a strike of 5.95 average damage for a strike from a fighter. (first strike)

This is called statistical mathematics in game design.

I showed that FROM THE NUMBERS my suggestion of 3 actions of 0/-5/-10 utilizing one action per is actually slightly less damage than using 1 action at full base attack from me and 2 actions at full base attack from a barbarian that's raging. (as in the playtest)

My suggestion, as demonstrated from the MATH shows that my suggested is not OP and is pretty close in damage to the playtest, but more interesting imo.

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

[Mellored]

Verzen wrote:

Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3
Fighter makes a full attack at 9/4/-1
Rogue makes a full attack at 7/2/-3

Commander makes a full attack at 7/4/-3 (Barbarian, then fighter, then rogue)

Commanders with your suggestion makes 7/4/6

(Barbarian, Fighter, Commander)

I understand you want to play a Commander that doesn't attack.
But you can't balance the ability around a Commander that doesn't attack when it can.

[Mellored]

Also, you need to consider movement.

Strike Hard doesn't just let you attack with a Barbarian, it lets you attack with a Barbarian from 30' away.

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

"You can fiddle and try to find worst situations possible to base your argument, but in most occasions, doing a mapless attack, then giving your barbarian a mapless attack, then giving the rogue a map -4 (or -5depending) sneak attack, will out damage every single martial rotation currently in the game."

Except I did the math. I. Did. The. Math. I showed you the math.

On a die of 20, each number represents 5%.

Against an AC of 18, a +9 to attack hits based on rolling a 9(9+9=18) to 18 while a roll of 19 (is 28) is over 10 which indicates its a crit.

So if I deal 1d8+4 avg of 5-12 damage, the average of this is 17/2.

8.5*.5+17*.1

8.5*.5 means that you have a 50% chance of dealing 8.5 avg damage and a 10% chance of dealing 17 average damage. Combine those together, you end up getting on average a strike of 5.95 average damage for a strike from a fighter. (first strike)

This is called statistical mathematics in game design.

I showed that FROM THE NUMBERS my suggestion of 3 actions of 0/-5/-10 utilizing one action per is actually slightly less damage than using 1 action at full base attack from me and 2 actions at full base attack from a barbarian that's raging. (as in the playtest)

My suggestion, as demonstrated from the MATH shows that my suggested is not OP and is pretty close in damage to the playtest, but more interesting imo.

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

You purposely choosing the worst possible option doesn't make you correct.

You're just strawmaning at this point.

Why would the commander use his 3rd action on a -10 attack rather than a +0 personal attack?

Do the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

[Verzen]

Mellored wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3
Fighter makes a full attack at 9/4/-1
Rogue makes a full attack at 7/2/-3

Commander makes a full attack at 7/4/-3 (Barbarian, then fighter, then rogue)

Commanders with your suggestion makes 7/4/6

(Barbarian, Fighter, Commander)

I understand you want to play a Commander that doesn't attack.
But you can't balance the ability around a Commander that doesn't attack when it can.

Uh wrong because the commander would get -10 if they attacked a 3rd time. The MAP effects all attacks.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

"You can fiddle and try to find worst situations possible to base your argument, but in most occasions, doing a mapless attack, then giving your barbarian a mapless attack, then giving the rogue a map -4 (or -5depending) sneak attack, will out damage every single martial rotation currently in the game."

Except I did the math. I. Did. The. Math. I showed you the math.

On a die of 20, each number represents 5%.

Against an AC of 18, a +9 to attack hits based on rolling a 9(9+9=18) to 18 while a roll of 19 (is 28) is over 10 which indicates its a crit.

So if I deal 1d8+4 avg of 5-12 damage, the average of this is 17/2.

8.5*.5+17*.1

8.5*.5 means that you have a 50% chance of dealing 8.5 avg damage and a 10% chance of dealing 17 average damage. Combine those together, you end up getting on average a strike of 5.95 average damage for a strike from a fighter. (first strike)

This is called statistical mathematics in game design.

I showed that FROM THE NUMBERS my suggestion of 3 actions of 0/-5/-10 utilizing one action per is actually slightly less damage than using 1 action at full base attack from me and 2 actions at full base attack from a barbarian that's raging. (as in the playtest)

My suggestion, as demonstrated from the MATH shows that my suggested is not OP and is pretty close in damage to the playtest, but more interesting imo.

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

You purposely choosing the worst possible option doesn't make you correct.

You're just strawmaning at this point.

Why would the commander use his 3rd action on a -10 attack rather than a +0 personal attack?

Do the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

I literally chose the best option. What are you talking about? Stop gaslighting.

Claiming the Commander has its own MAP as part of the rotation is a STRAWMAN. I can't strawman my own argument when I am trying to explain MY position when yall misrepresent it.

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

[Mellored]

Verzen wrote:

Mellored wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3
Fighter makes a full attack at 9/4/-1
Rogue makes a full attack at 7/2/-3

Commander makes a full attack at 7/4/-3 (Barbarian, then fighter, then rogue)

Commanders with your suggestion makes 7/4/6

(Barbarian, Fighter, Commander)

I understand you want to play a Commander that doesn't attack.
But you can't balance the ability around a Commander that doesn't attack when it can.

Uh wrong because the commander would get -10 if they attacked a 3rd time. The MAP effects all attacks.

that helps.

But your still attacking from multiple locations within moving.
Or using a battle axe with a shield.
Or a Flurry ranger for the third attack.

[Verzen]

Mellored wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mellored wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Barbarian makes a full attack at 7/2/-3
Fighter makes a full attack at 9/4/-1
Rogue makes a full attack at 7/2/-3

Commander makes a full attack at 7/4/-3 (Barbarian, then fighter, then rogue)

Commanders with your suggestion makes 7/4/6

(Barbarian, Fighter, Commander)

I understand you want to play a Commander that doesn't attack.
But you can't balance the ability around a Commander that doesn't attack when it can.

Uh wrong because the commander would get -10 if they attacked a 3rd time. The MAP effects all attacks.

that helps.

But your still attacking from multiple locations within moving.
Or using a battle axe with a shield.
Or a Flurry ranger for the third attack.

Ranged don't have to move either. And? Think of it like ranged attacking but you can only strike targets adjacent to your allies. Same thing.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

Your math is atrocious because you're using an improper model. When you use bad math of course it will be wrong. The commanders ability in my suggestion has the attack trait. Thus even if you use attack with your commander MAP applies to barbarian and thus Rogue.

[exequiel759]

I think an easy solution to this would be that Strike Hard! imposes a MAP penalty regardless of who uses it. For example, let's say the commander uses Strike Hard! with the fighter, to which they make an attack to their full MAP. Then you use it on the barbarian, but since its the second time you use it it has a -5 MAP. Then you use it on the rogue, but since its the third time it has a -10 MAP. I'd even argue you could balance this even further by ignoring things like agile or similars since "your ally is following orders rather than following his own instincts" or whatever.

[Verzen]

exequiel759 wrote:

I think an easy solution to this would be that Strike Hard! imposes a MAP penalty regardless of who uses it. For example, let's say the commander uses Strike Hard! with the fighter, to which they make an attack to their full MAP. Then you use it on the barbarian, but since its the second time you use it it has a -5 MAP. Then you use it on the rogue, but since its the third time it has a -10 MAP. I'd even argue you could balance this even further by ignoring things like agile or similars since "your ally is following orders rather than following his own instincts" or whatever.

100% this but also add in a >> option as well which can allow an ally to hit with a cantrip so there's some caster support as well.

[Verzen]

Along with allowing kineticists to use their blast too... can't leave them out.

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

[pH unbalanced]

So I have played a high-level Silent Whisper Psychic, which can use Amped Message to let an ally use a reaction to Stride, Strike, Step, Trip, or Shove.

Message is only 1-action, but it costs a Focus point. So it is balanced against all other uses for Focus points in combat.

This ability is *extremely* powerful in play. 1-action unlimited use to give an ally a Strike would absolutely be unbalanced. 2-actions unlimited use seems about right. (Especially since it won't cost your ally a reaction, since you will be gifting it to them.)

[Mellored]

Verzen wrote:

Ranged don't have to move either. And? Think of it like ranged attacking but you can only strike targets adjacent to your allies. Same thing.

ranged attacks with a d12 takes 2 actions. One to attack, one to reload.

Then you get to swap to agile weapon for your third attack, without using an action.

Might be fine at higher levels, where 1 improved Strike is weaker compared to other compressed actions.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is insisting that the strawman you created is my argument when its not. You then used this bad model which has nothing at all to do with my argument as evidence my argument is wrong. Why are you being dishonest? I dont know how many different ways I must explain this to you for you to get it. At this point I assume you are doing this on purpose making you dishonest.

It's simple. The commanders ability has the attack trait. So if I attack with commander with a +7, then barbarian, barbarian, then rogue, the math is +7/+2/-3. You dont get to randomly give the barbarian +5 because you feel like distorting what I am saying. Stop being dishonest.

[Verzen]

pH unbalanced wrote:

So I have played a high-level Silent Whisper Psychic, which can use Amped Message to let an ally use a reaction to Stride, Strike, Step, Trip, or Shove.

Message is only 1-action, but it costs a Focus point. So it is balanced against all other uses for Focus points in combat.

This ability is *extremely* powerful in play. 1-action unlimited use to give an ally a Strike would absolutely be unbalanced. 2-actions unlimited use seems about right. (Especially since it won't cost your ally a reaction, since you will be gifting it to them.)

*sigh* Again with other people being disingenuous.

Psychics also get spells they can use 2 actions on. Casters are balanced around only casting 1 spell per turn and not balanced around striking. They are balanced around casting level 9 spells or level 10 spells at high level and that additional action usually isnt used for much, as such, that ability deserves to be slightly on the weaker end.

Since this would be the commanders main schtick and since they do not get level 9 or 10 spells, the power budget can be afforded to it.

[Verzen]

Mellored wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Ranged don't have to move either. And? Think of it like ranged attacking but you can only strike targets adjacent to your allies. Same thing.

ranged attacks with a d12 takes 2 actions. One to attack, one to reload.

Then you get to swap to agile weapon for your third attack, without using an action.

Might be fine at higher levels, where 1 improved Strike is weaker compared to other compressed actions.

IF your barbarian has a d12 weapon and you can only target him once per turn with it.

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is insisting that the strawman you created is my argument when its not. You then used...

You're the only one being an idiot.

You even furthermore went for personal attacks when proven wrong to try to justify your errors instead of accepting them as a grown up.

Show where the math is wrong or accept the fact that they prove how ridiculous both you and your ability is.

[Verzen]

I literally showed yall the math and the math is slightly weaker than how it currently is and yall are still arguing with me lol.

Amazing.

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

I literally showed yall the math and the math is slightly weaker than how it currently is and yall are still arguing with me lol.

Amazing.

That would help if you knew how to math, but you did them wrong.

The correct math shows the Commander doing 25% more damage than a barbarian.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is insisting that the strawman you created is my argument

...

I LITERALLY F#@%ING DID MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

7/2/-3

7/2/-3

7/2-3

Doesn't matter who's making the attack on the commanders turn (except fighter who gets a +2) it's still 7/2/-3

MAP EFFECTS THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT THE COMMANDER IS DOING!

You are adding a random +5 bonus FOR NO REASON to the barbarians attack and acting SURPRISED that it now deals more DPS as a result than barbarian because now you're ignoring MAP when my argument is including MAP. For f%*% sake dude.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

I literally showed yall the math and the math is slightly weaker than how it currently is and yall are still arguing with me lol.

Amazing.

That would help if you knew how to math, but you did them wrong.

The correct math shows the Commander doing 25% more damage than a barbarian.

Okay sure if you randomly strawman my argument and refuse to be corrected and you add in a random +5 to barbarians attack. But im the one doing math wrong. Uh huh.

[shroudb]

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is insisting that the strawman you

...

That's not what the ability says.

Can't you read what you even wrote yourself?

It does matter who makes the attacks.

Your own attack is at full map.
The first time you use the ability is at full map
The second time you pick the rogue with the agile weapon, thus -4.

That's what YOU wrote in the ability.

Quote:

If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection

Even outside of that, the fact that you dont need to stride but use your Ally range for your attacks, even if the MAP issue was resolved, would make the ability OP.

Just accept the fact when the vast majority is telling you you are wrong, that in fact you are.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

I literally showed yall the math and the math is slightly weaker than how it currently is and yall are still arguing with me lol.

Amazing.

That would help if you knew how to math, but you did them wrong.

The correct math shows the Commander doing 25% more damage than a barbarian.

Mellored understood after I clarified, why can't you?

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Now. Show me the maths for your argument showing my suggestion is OP and better than any martial in the game, please. Back it up with maths. Not just baseless assertions with no evidential support.

Who's gaslighting?

the math as:
+7(commander)/+7(barb)/+3(rogue)

Vs a barb doing a rotation of +7/+2/-3

Vs ac 17:
Commander, average damage of (D12 weapon cause why not) 9.5 hits 50% and crits 5%, so 6.3
Barbarian, average damage of 14.5, same odds, 8.7
Rogue average damage of 11 (2d6+4) hits on a 14, crits on a 20, so 30% hit, 5% crit. So average 4.4

5.7+8.7+4.4 = 18.8

3 strike barbarian:
50%+5%crit, 25%+5%, 5%
Average damage 15.225

The commander dealt 23.5% more damage than the barbarian.

How is the barb +7? Does your level 1 barb have +12 attack? If so I think you're cheating.

Dude, you asked for math.

Math proved you wrong.

Let's see what you posted as the ability effect:

Quote:

"If you use one action for this ability, you can order one of your squadmates to strike at a target within range of that squadmate. The 2nd time in a turn that you use this ability, the squadmate makes a strike at a -5 penalty. If this ability is used a 3rd time in the turn, the squadmate makes a 3rd attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties can be reduced based on your squadmates class selection, feat selection, or weapon selection."

So, YOUR attack is at 0 MAP

THE FIRST TIME you use the ability, the barbarian attacks at 0 MAP
THE SECOND TIME you use the ability, the rogue attacks at -4 MAP due to his short sword.

As written, the ability has the Commander doing 25% more damage than the barbarian.

So, OP, proven by actual maths and not your gaslighting ones.

Stop being an idiot. It frustrates me.

I already explained to you the math that you used was wrong. Insisting its right is

...

And I clarified several f%@+ing times and you refused to listen to me and you ignored what I was saying!

[Verzen]

Because you apparently don't know the rules to this game, I said it would have the attack trait.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=540&Redirected=1

"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty. "

WHICH MEANS if you make a strike using another player as a CONDUIT that strike is effected as per MAP and you keep IGNORING what I am saying and arguing with me. Rather than ask QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY you keep arguing with me. It is absolutely obnoxious.

[shroudb]

Unfortunately edit times meant you answered before the edit was added, but to repost it:

Even if you fix your MAP issues, the ability to attack with Melee damage using Ranged actions by itself is OP.

When the vast majority here are telling you you are wrong, it's probably better to accept it rather than stubbornly deny without justification.

Edit:
To give you the simplest of examples of a normal round:
The barbarian goes next to the target and swings twice.
The rogue goes and flanks the target and swings twice.
The Commander then goes, attacks twice with the barbarian, doing more damage because he now flanks, and then goes once at -8 with the rogue doing even more damage.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Unfortunately edit times meant you answered before the edit was added, but to repost it:

Even if you fix your MAP issues, the ability to attack with Melee damage using Ranged actions by itself is OP.

When the vast majority here are telling you you are wrong, it's probably better to accept it rather than stubbornly deny without justification.

Edit:
To give you the simplest of examples of a normal round:
The barbarian goes next to the target and swings twice.
The rogue goes and flanks the target and swings twice.
The Commander then goes, attacks twice with the barbarian, doing more damage because he now flanks, and then goes once at -8 with the rogue doing even more damage.

How is it overpowered? Archer deals more damage than a commander would.

Its hilarious that whenever I suggest classes get or emphasize cool schticks, yall keep claiming its OP when other classes can do that thing and more.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Unfortunately edit times meant you answered before the edit was added, but to repost it:

Even if you fix your MAP issues, the ability to attack with Melee damage using Ranged actions by itself is OP.

When the vast majority here are telling you you are wrong, it's probably better to accept it rather than stubbornly deny without justification.

Edit:
To give you the simplest of examples of a normal round:
The barbarian goes next to the target and swings twice.
The rogue goes and flanks the target and swings twice.
The Commander then goes, attacks twice with the barbarian, doing more damage because he now flanks, and then goes once at -8 with the rogue doing even more damage.

The vast majority aren't saying I am wrong lol.

If you understood statistics, youd understand that the vast majority are silent and the people who want to argue with others are vastly more likely to respond than those who agree who often keep quiet.

Just because you and one or two others piped up doesnt give you the right to use an appeal to popularity on me when its gauged on bad statistical data.

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

Unfortunately edit times meant you answered before the edit was added, but to repost it:

Even if you fix your MAP issues, the ability to attack with Melee damage using Ranged actions by itself is OP.

When the vast majority here are telling you you are wrong, it's probably better to accept it rather than stubbornly deny without justification.

Edit:
To give you the simplest of examples of a normal round:
The barbarian goes next to the target and swings twice.
The rogue goes and flanks the target and swings twice.
The Commander then goes, attacks twice with the barbarian, doing more damage because he now flanks, and then goes once at -8 with the rogue doing even more damage.

Oh look more strawman. What part of, "Can only target one ally per turn with this ability" are you struggling with?

[Dubious Scholar]

Yeah, sorry, but as much as you really want to just take a turn doing Strike Hard 3x, I don't see it happening. There's no way to balance that properly, and your butchering of the Attack trait and MAP concepts isn't going to get you there.

Here's my proof: I'll make a Wizard multiclassing Commander. I cast two actions on a spell that uses saving throws and then Strike Hard to give the barbarian an attack at full bonus. This lets me play a character who functionally is a full spellcaster and full martial at the same time, and with the bonus that I get to deal full melee damage from 30' away!

[Verzen]

Plus the chance of hitting with a rogue at -8 it approximately 5%.

[Verzen]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Yeah, sorry, but as much as you really want to just take a turn doing Strike Hard 3x, I don't see it happening. There's no way to balance that properly, and your butchering of the Attack trait and MAP concepts isn't going to get you there.

Here's my proof: I'll make a Wizard multiclassing Commander. I cast two actions on a spell that uses saving throws and then Strike Hard to give the barbarian an attack at full bonus. This lets me play a character who functionally is a full spellcaster and full martial at the same time, and with the bonus that I get to deal full melee damage from 30' away!

Your proof is to further strawman my argument?

How many strawmen can you guys make in one argument? Seriously?

Did you not see the part where I said it's part of the class chassis? You get it built in at level 1? That its not a feat you can pick up?

So how is your wizard magically getting this ability? Thats like saying Fighter is over powered because you can just multiclass into fighter to get the +2 bonus to attack and be expert in attack, or you can just multiclass into ranger to get the MAP reduction or you can just multiclass into therm and get the full effect of their abilities to deal more damage.

[Pronate11]

If one person misunderstands you, that person has just misunderstood you. if everyone is misunderstanding you, maybe its time to step back and explain yourself better.

[Verzen]

I will repeat myself in hopes of preventing further strawmen from being murdered.

This is given at level 1 as part of the chassis. It is not a feat. You cannot pick this up as a diff class.

Command: Strike Now! > or >> (Attack trait)

If you spend one action, you can make a strike with an ally using your MAP to make a strike within reach of that ally.

If you spend 2 actions, you can have an ally use a cantrip instead of a strike.

Can not target the same ally more than once per round with this ability.

Multiclass benefit (which I didnt previously add) could be

Command: Strike Now! >>
Target ally makes a strike at a -5 penalty.

[Verzen]

Pronate11 wrote:

If one person misunderstands you, that person has just misunderstood you. if everyone is misunderstanding you, maybe its time to step back and explain yourself better.

Incorrect. People need to ask questions if something isnt understood and actually read my responses rather than ignore my responses when I try to clarify.

[Dubious Scholar]

You really don't understand what strawman means, do you? You seem to be flinging it about at anyone who criticizes your idea without any understanding of the meaning. You're using it as a generic insult.

Your responses in this thread seem to be extremely hostile to any criticism of your idea. It's been pointed out that your initial posted concept is not balanced at all, and you just keep trying to kludge on more restrictions and such to make it work.

The thing is, the printed Strike Hard works perfectly well. It's basically a direct copy from Marshal's To Battle! feat at level 8 (well, the two-action version of it - the one action version is available as a separate tactic... that works for the whole party, so a straight upgrade).

Now, allowing the use of cantrips and elemental blasts is a sensible addition. The issue is that all of that should really cost two actions still. What you propose, at best, would basically render it utterly pointless for a Commander to invest in their own offensive options because they can just use whatever party member has the most damaging option at the time from a safe distance. And doing it from a distance is inherently saving on action economy - ranged attacks are usually weaker for a reason!

[Verzen]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

You really don't understand what strawman means, do you? You seem to be flinging it about at anyone who criticizes your idea without any understanding of the meaning. You're using it as a generic insult.

Your responses in this thread seem to be extremely hostile to any criticism of your idea. It's been pointed out that your initial posted concept is not balanced at all, and you just keep trying to kludge on more restrictions and such to make it work.

The thing is, the printed Strike Hard works perfectly well. It's basically a direct copy from Marshal's To Battle! feat at level 8 (well, the two-action version of it - the one action version is available as a separate tactic... that works for the whole party, so a straight upgrade).

Now, allowing the use of cantrips and elemental blasts is a sensible addition. The issue is that all of that should really cost two actions still. What you propose, at best, would basically render it utterly pointless for a Commander to invest in their own offensive options because they can just use whatever party member has the most damaging option at the time from a safe distance. And doing it from a distance is inherently saving on action economy - ranged attacks are usually weaker for a reason!

A strawman is misconstruing an argument. I know what it is. When I repeatedly, not once, not twice, but 5 times said that MAP works for the entirety of the strikes, including whatever the commander does and he repeatedly ignores me and adds +5 to it that is a strawman.

When I repeatedly said you can target the same ally once with it per round and he adds the barbarian strikes twice to his argument that is a strawman.

[Verzen]

I am not using it as a generic insult when I am saying that they are misconstruing my argument. Even my original post said, "The same ally cannot be selected more than once per round" and he still said, "Barbarian strikes twice and rogue strikes once" how is it not a strawman at that point? lol

[Verzen]

And yes I get pissed when people purposefully misconstrue what i am saying. And yes i know it's on purpose because people arent that dumb to see what I am saying and then accidentally misconstrue it and then continue to argue about it and ignore correction.

So yes. He did that on purpose. And no. I do not see how my suggestion, which actually deals less dps than the current thing in the PDF is somehow OP.

[Ectar]

Verzen wrote:

I dont see how my suggestion is overpowered at all.

You did not address most of the points I mentioned:

You're still getting to attack 3 times without having to spend the actions necessary to move into position.
You get to attack from multiple locations with no cost.

Suppose in your example the Barbarian felled their foe with your first attack. Now you're attacking with the Fighter from potentially up to 60ft away from where that occurred at no penalty.
If you were just a 2nd striker, you'd have to move or Sudden Charge or something to get into position most of the time.

You're getting to double dip the power into single target buffs. If that Barbarian received a rank 6 Heroism, you'd effectively be increasing the power of that spell by an extra third or more since you're getting extra buffed attacks, again at no cost.

Your entire math argument only works if the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are in non-magical equipment, with 0 buffs, and are all in range to hit each of the 3 different enemies.

Heck, that's another point: since this character you've suggested requires no stat or equipment investment, you get to invest those extra resources into the rest of the party, which only makes this whole situation worse, since now we're double dipping in economy.

Your suggestion that the ally makes a will save even makes the problem WORSE, since they're saving against the Commander's DC, the Commander is incentivized to have a lower DC, which should never be the case.

[Verzen]

Ectar wrote:

Verzen wrote:

I dont see how my suggestion is overpowered at all.

You did not address most of the points I mentioned:

You're still getting to attack 3 times without having to spend the actions necessary to move into position.
You get to attack from multiple locations with no cost.

Suppose in your example the Barbarian felled their foe with your first attack. Now you're attacking with the Fighter from potentially up to 60ft away from where that occurred at no penalty.
If you were just a 2nd striker, you'd have to move or Sudden Charge or something to get into position most of the time.

You're getting to double dip the power into single target buffs. If that Barbarian received a rank 6 Heroism, you'd effectively be increasing the power of that spell by an extra third or more since you're getting extra buffed attacks, again at no cost.

Your entire math argument only works if the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue are in non-magical equipment, with 0 buffs, and are all in range to hit each of the 3 different enemies.

Heck, that's another point: since this character you've suggested requires no stat or equipment investment, you get to invest those extra resources into the rest of the party, which only makes this whole situation worse, since now we're double dipping in economy.

Your suggestion that the ally makes a will save even makes the problem WORSE, since they're saving against the Commander's DC, the Commander is incentivized to have a lower DC, which should never be the case.

Lets face facts. Archer is the same. They dont need to move into position and archers deal insane amounts of damage. A lot more than commanders would be able to do.

You're also wrong as this ability would only effect squadmates (Wasnt mentioned specifically but definitely implied since the class can only effect squadmates) so you need intelligence to effect squadmates.

Bards don't require equipment investment. Neither do psychics who have message amp.

I may have said that backwards but the intent is to offer a chance for the guy to be too stubborn to follow orders.

[Mellored]

Verzen wrote:

Mellored wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Ranged don't have to move either. And? Think of it like ranged attacking but you can only strike targets adjacent to your allies. Same thing.

ranged attacks with a d12 takes 2 actions. One to attack, one to reload.

Then you get to swap to agile weapon for your third attack, without using an action.

Might be fine at higher levels, where 1 improved Strike is weaker compared to other compressed actions.

IF your barbarian has a d12 weapon and you can only target him once per turn with it.

you still have.

"Make the best strike in your party, at range".

You can use the guy who is flanking, or the guy who has blind fighting, or the guy who is dealing the weaknesses damage type, or the one who can shoot 100'.

It literally can't be worse than anyone else's Stike. It's always the best Stike.

Again, maybe at higher levels when people can do more than a basic Stike.

[Ectar]

Verzen wrote:

Lets face facts. Archer is the same. They dont need to move into position and archers deal insane amounts of damage. A lot more than commanders would be able to do.

You're also wrong as this ability would only effect squadmates (Wasnt mentioned specifically but definitely implied since the class can only effect squadmates) so you need intelligence to effect squadmates.

Bards don't require equipment investment. Neither do psychics who have message amp.

I may have said that backwards but the intent is to offer a chance for the guy to be too stubborn to follow orders.

Archers requires stat investiture. Archers suffers from partial cover due to allies. Well-built archers do measurably less damage than well-build melee characters, probably designed that way because they don't have to move, so they deal less damage per action as compensation for requiring fewer actions to set up.

Your example would require 1 point of intelligence, which is hardly a cost. Even if your version gave you a max number of squadmates equal to your int mod, you're still getting to make melee attacks at a distance without requiring any of the physical stats (or magical equipment) necessary to do so.

Bards don't need a significant investment to spam their composition cantrips, but if that's all they're doing they're missing out on 10th level spellcasting. Which many times does incentivize putting their stats into Charisma anyway, since saving throws exist.

Regarding the Psychic Amp Message:
1.) The Psychic had to spec into The Silent Whisper, ergo locking them out of other Conscious Mind options. Therefore opportunity cost.
Your suggestion is to give Strike Now! to all Commanders at level 1, ergo no opportunity cost to acquire an ability of similar strength.
2.) AMP message. It literally requires you to spend resources to get the ally to have the ability to strike. Which means you have fewer options for using focus points for the rest of the combat.

That version of the DC thing makes it feel like the Commander is trying to use their allies against their will?
Even if mechanically it's more balanced, I think it's bad game design. Players are supposed to be encouraged to work together, not to use each other.